Creativity In Education - ETAD 805

Creativity in Education
Brian Simmons
ETAD 805
University of Saskatchewan

Creativity In Education - ETAD 805

Creativity in Education: Introduction

In recent years, the idea of creativity in education has been gaining momentum as several big
name speakers have presented at large and popular events, speaking eloquently on the topic
and putting the idea forward that creativity is a force that can be harnessed to drive educational
change. Spearheading this movement was Sir Ken Robinson, a highly regarded speaker on the
topics of creativity, innovation and human resources in education and in business (Bio, n.d.).
In 2006, Robinson presented a talk entitled How schools kill creativity to the audience of TED
2006 and, in June 2006, to the world via TED.com. This talk, which has had over 18,000,000
views since it was first posted, challenges the current practices of first world educational
systems and discusses the need for change so that the creativity of students is nurtured instead
of repressed. The topic and ideas presented in this influential talk, and in the talks of other
educators, have reached millions of viewers but what does it really mean? How exactly can
educators ensure they are supporting and nurturing the creativity of learners?
This work will set out to explore and analyze the current information and practices concerning
creativity in education. Drawing from research and opinion, it is the goal of this paper to provide
educators with an introduction to the concept, suggest a starting point for designing learning
activities that support the creativity of individual students and present the challenges and
shortcomings of the current work on the topic.

Reaching a Definition
A quick Google search for a definition of creativity leads first to Wikipedia where one can find
the following definition:
Creativity is a phenomenon whereby something new and valuable is created (such as an
idea, a joke, a literary work, a painting or musical composition, a solution, an invention
etc.). It is also the qualitative impetus behind any given act of creation, and it is generally
perceived to be associated with intelligence and cognition. (Creativity, n.d.)
This seems relatively clear, but this portion of the entry on this topic is missing references and
offers no clear insights into the background work that helped generate the definition. It could
assumed, due to the nature of Wikipedia entries, that the definition has been built on the
numerous previous attempts at definition by philosophers, psychologists and other experts in
the field, dating back as far the golden-age of the Greeks (Dacey and Lennon, 1998). Robert
Sternberg, Todd Lubart, James Kaufman and Sternberg, Mark Runco and Alane Starko are just
a few of the numerous sources of research on the topic (as cited in Kelly, 2012). While is it
important, then, to dive a bit deeper into previous research and efforts to clearly define
creativity, for the sake of brevity, we will select just four definitions to explore in further detail.
Perhaps one of the most referenced definitions of creativity comes from Mihaly
Csikszentmihalyi, the developer of the psychological theory of flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990).

Creativity In Education - ETAD 805

Using a systems model, Csikszentmihalyi created his definition based in the interrelations of a
system made up of three main parts, which consist of domain, field and person
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1996). The domain, which is a set of symbolic rules and procedures are
nested within the culture shared by both small and larger groups of individuals. The field
consists of the individual gatekeepers of the domain, individuals who screen new products and
ideas for inclusion into the domain. Interwoven throughout these two parts, and essential to
them both, is the person who using the symbols of a given domain...has a new idea or sees a
new pattern (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996). The person is selected to be included in the domain by
the members of the field. This systems perspective leads Csikszentmihalyi to create a two-part
definition, looking at the product and process of creativity. This definition is as follows:
Creativity is any act, idea, or product that changes an existing domain, or that transforms
an existing domain into a new one. And the definition of a creative person is: someone
whose thoughts or actions change a domain, or establish a new domain.
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1996, p. 28)
Another commonly referenced definition comes from Robert E. Frankens book Human
Motivation (1993), in which he states that creativity is the tendency to generate or recognize
ideas, alternatives, or possibilities that may be useful in solving problems, communicating with
others, and entertaining ourselves and others. (p. 396) This definition differs from that of
Csikszentmihalyi in that it focusses entirely on the process that happens within the individual
and not on the physical work itself; the products that are created are a direct outcome of the
ideas being generated. It shows a belief that the root of creativity is contained within the
individual and it takes someone to recognize the need for new thinking to make progress in a
specific field or to satisfy human needs.
Due to their simplicity, the final examples stand in stark contrast to the previous definitions.
Jane Piirto states that To be creative is to make something new or novel (as cited in Kelly,
2012) and Robert Kelly has identified this definition as one of two that can serve as
foundational definitions for educational practice (2012). The other is from Todd Lubart who
says that the creative process is the sequence of thought and actions that leads to a novel,
adaptive production (as cited in Kelly, 2012). Both of these definitions use keywords to imply
that a final product, be it an abstract theory or physical item, is requisite to creativity. These
products, in whatever form that is accepted by the domain and field, are the physical
manifestations of the thought process behind the creative action and still require the work of a
person to be achieved.
So, what does it all really mean? As you can see from the definitions provided, and from any
other that you may find in your own exploration of the topic, creative ideas are new, relevant and
contribute to an area of human interest, which is different from purely original ideas or products
that may carry little value or do not contribute to a domain despite being new. Creativity comes
in many forms and can be expressed in innumerable ways in relation to different domains. It is
difficult to select just one definition to use for the remainder of this work and apply it to the

Creativity In Education - ETAD 805

domain of education so this synthesis of the explored definitions will server as the foundation for
our exploration of creativity in education.

Theories of Creativity
As with the multitude of definitions mention in the previous section, it is impossible, at least in
the scope of this paper, to review all the major theories of creativity that have been developed
over the years of research and ruminations on the topic. Instead, this section will look at how
these theories are categorized in order to provide insights into the thinking behind their
development.
Researchers have looked at different ways of classifying the variety of creativity theories based
on different comparative factors. One such method, which draws from the work of
Csikszentmihalyi, is use of creative magnitude, or the impact that the creative action has on the
broader world or domain. For this Csikszentmihalyi, and others, use the ideas of smaller c and
Larger C as levels of impact (Kozbelt, Behetto, & Runco, 2010). Smaller c creativity is that
which people display while engaged in everyday activities such as cooking, woodworking or
sports. This level of creativity is important but carries little impact outside of the life of an
individual or small group of people. Of Larger C magnitude are those creative actions that have
an impact on an entire domain or culture, to the point of potentially creating new domains or
evolving the domain into a new form. The dichotomy of smaller c and Large C allows for the
comparison of the scope, nature and limitations of theories under consideration (Kozbelt et al,
2010) but can also lack nuance and, somewhat paradoxically, be too inclusive in some
instances and not inclusive enough in others (Kozbelt et al., 2010).
Due to these limitations, many researchers have turned instead to a classification scheme
labelled as The Four Ps of Creativity: process, product, person and place (Kozbelt et al., 2010).
This model allows for theories under consideration to be classified based on the aspects of
creativity that they emphasize. Process theories look at and identify the mental processes that
occur when an individual is engaged in creative activities while Product theories look at the
outcomes of creative activities, be it a work of art, new song or the development of a new sport.
Theories that emphasize the Person identify and explore specific traits of individuals that may
provide insight into, or predict the creative potential of, a specific individual. Finally, Place
theories explore the interactions between individual and the environment, and identify traits of
these interactions that support engagement in creative activities. Over time, this model has
been adapted to include two more classifications, persuasion and potential. Persuasion
theories look at how creative individuals persuade others to see value in their ideas and
contributions, thus getting them accepted into specific domains, while models based on
Potential provide insight into the development of creative thinking and problem solving in those
who require support to engage in creative activities (Kozbelt, 2010).
Thiis model has many advantages over the dichotomy of smaller c/Larger C magnitude. With
more selective criteria, different theories can be easily fit into specific classification based on

Creativity In Education - ETAD 805

their content. This model also implies that the classifications are all interrelated to each other
and that different theories focus on specific elements of the broader concept of creativity.
Building on this classification scheme, Kozbelt, Behetto and Runco (2010) also offer 10
categories into which specific theories may fit based on the identified attributes of each theory.
Directly connected to the Four (now Six) Ps, these categories are as follows:
1. Developmental
2. Psychometric
3. Economic
4. Stage & Componential Process
5. Cognitive
6. Problem Solving & Expertise-Based
7. Problem Finding
8. Evolutionary
9. Typological
10. Systems
Unfortunately, it is outside the scope of this paper to explore these categories in further detail.
With a closer looks at the names themselves, however, you can begin to see the range of
theories that have been presented over time. Some of these specific categories are reflections
of theories of learning, such as constructivism, and will feel familiar to educators with experience
in the practical application of such concepts.

Implications for Education

The brief look at definitions and categorizations illustrates that creativity as a topic of study is
broad and detailed, encompassing thoughts, ideas and research across many generations. It is
by no means a new topic of study, despite the recent boom in popularity, and has impacted
education for many years. In fact, Guillard, based on research conducted and presented in
1950, spoke about the risks of current educational practices in reducing the creative thinking of
students (Beghetto, 2010). No matter the reason for the increase in interest, the concept of
creativity in education is becoming one that is heavily promoted to teachers to implement in their
classroom.
So, why creativity?
Many speakers and writers have spoken eloquently on the reasoning behind the need for a
creative revolution in schools (Beghetto, 2010; Craft, 2005; Craft 2011; Cropley, 1992; Cropley,
1997; Desailly, 2012; Kelly, 2008; Kelly, 2012; Robinson, 2011; Starko, 2001). There are
common themes that appear in their arguments. First, and perhaps foremost, is the idea that
current educational practices are not preparing students for work and life in the world in which
we currently live. The emphasis on summative evaluation and teacher-directed lessons is

Creativity In Education - ETAD 805

creating learning environments that celebrate inequality, giving those students who learn and
perform in a certain way advantages over other students with less traditional learning styles.
Focusing on content and specific knowledge sets, many school systems unintentionally promote
and maintain a model of education that was developed during the Industrial Revolution to meet
the needs of the times. While all agree that universal education is vital for the success of
modern societies, they argue that change needs to happen quickly to ensure that countries
remain competitive in a rapidly changing global market filled with many unknowns. As Sir Ken
Robinson contends ...we dont grow into creativity; we grow out of it. Often we are educated
out of it (2011).
The proponents of creativity in education argue that the concept of creativity harnesses the skill
sets needed to ensure that schools becomes places of equity and opportunity. A creative
educational environment promotes the skills and attitudes needed for our youth to be successful
in the coming age of ambiguity. They will be need to be able to solve problems within work
environments or jobs that do not currently exist and the system of universal education stands in
a unique place in that it can support and develop these skills for a broad audience and in large
numbers. As Anna Craft has said, It is not merely excellence in depth of knowledge...that
young people need (2005). It is, rather, creativity that allows people to identify problems,
possibilities and opportunities that have not been noticed before, and develop solutions that are
novel and relevant. A learning environment that fosters patience, questioning, trust and risk
taking works to nurture creative thinking in students (Trilling & Fadel, 2009) thus giving repeated
practice of the skills needed to be creative which, in turn, helps prepare students for learning,
work, and life in the 21st century (Trilling & Fadel, 2009).
The challenge that educators face, then, is bringing these ideas into their classroom while
working within the constraints of policy and tradition. Often, curriculum is rigid and compulsory,
creating challenges for educators that wish for their students to engage in creative learning.
Changes in assessment practices can be held in check by mandatory standardized testing that
focuses on the specific knowledge presented within the curriculum. This creates the need to
balance professional creativity and the requirements of working within an educational setting.
It is not an easy task, and achieving this goal has been a challenge for both educators and
researchers alike (Beghetto, 2010). Often it feels as though educators hear more about the
reasons for incorporating creativity into their classrooms than the actual methods of doing so.

Designing Creative Learning Opportunities

In 2004, Goodlad presented the findings of a multi-year study, which found that, on average,
about 75% of class time was spent on instruction and that nearly 70% of this was talk - usually
teacher to students (as cited in Beghetto, 2010).
As you can imagine, this does not work towards the fostering and nurturing of creative thinking
and skills.

Creativity In Education - ETAD 805

Instead, classrooms need to focus on developing and supporting a broader cognitive skill set.
Using several decades research, A.J. Cropley (1997) has identified these as follows:
1. Possession of a fund of general knowledge
2. Knowledge of one or more special fields
3. An active imagination
4. Ability to recognize, discover, or invent problems
5. Convergent thinking (Identifying connections, similarities and implications)
6. Divergent thinking (Making remote associations)
7. Ability to think up many ways to solve problems
8. A preference for accommodating rather than assimilating
9. Ability and willingness to evaluate their own work
10. Ability to communicate their results to other people.
Others have, of course, added their own ideas to the list, such as Kelly who states that
collaboration is vital to creativity (2008). While the list is by no means exhaustive, it shows that
the traditional models cited in Goodlads research do not work to promote such a diverse set of
cognitive skills.
There are three identified ways to harness creativity in a classroom. First, teaching creatively, is
teacher focused and the NACCCE defines it as using imaginative approaches to make learning
more interesting and effective (Craft, 2005; Desailly, 2012). The second, learning creatively, is
a new consideration presented by Jeffrey and Craft and looks at the autonomy of learners and
their own understanding of how they learn, including their personal strengths, challenges and
passions (as cited in Desailly, 2012). The third, and perhaps the most discussed, is teaching to
develop creativity (Craft, 2005). This method sees educators designing instruction that does not
just use creative methods; instead, their design includes opportunities for students to repeatedly
engage in the cognitive skills that make up creative thinking. It becomes important, then, for
educators to familiarize themselves with these skills as a starting point for their attempts at
incorporating creativity.
It is at this point that the research and writing on creative education begins to lack details and
information for the teacher looking for more direct support in teaching to develop creativity.
Instead of providing frameworks or checklists for the creation of lessons, which would really go
against the principles that are being promoted, the work looks at general elements that should
be considered during planning. Much of this is presented as synthesized information from years
of research. The following sections are brief summaries of the major themes contained within
this information.

Theme 1: Personalization

Creativity In Education - ETAD 805

The biggest and most common theme is that creativity and the creative process is highly
personal and that during some of their school experiences, students must be presented with
broad areas of concern in which to identify and frame individual problems (Starko, 2001). While
lessons that are highly structured have their place in the classroom, it is also important that
students are given the opportunities to engage in work of their own choosing and design, even if
it relates to a large theme or idea. While, at first, lessons that develop creativity may need to be
guided (after all, it can be difficult for a young student to come up with ideas), it is important that
they eventually be allowed to move onto their own self-instigated work that is generative and
allows for collaboration, research, experimentation, analysis and task sustainment (Kelly, 2012).
This translates to the opportunity to generate ideas, conduct research, prototype their ideas and
re-evaluate their approaches to solving the problem they have selected. Teachers can support
this by being models, providing access to experts outside of the classroom and tying curriculum
to the world of the students, both as a community and as individuals. Through this, students
feel as though they have voice and choice in their education, making their learning more
personal and providing intrinsic motivation for further self-development.
A clear example of this level of personalization at work comes through the idea of 20% Time
projects. Based on Googles 20% policy, in which employees can use up to 20 percent of their
time to work on something other than their current projects, students are given approximately
one day a week to design and develop a project based on their own learning outcomes (Juliani,
2013). These projects can be guided by curricular outcomes or be driven entirely by student
passions (or both), and take as much time as needed to reach completion. Students work
together with their teacher to set criteria for completion and have the unique experience of
working with the frustration of the design process in a real-life situation.

Theme 2: Teacher Impact

Throughout this process, obviously, the teacher can have a profound impact on the creative
development of students, both positively and negatively. While the first major theme focuses on
the positive impact an educator can have on creativity, the second major theme explores the
ways that teachers can suppress the creative thinking of their students.
Robert Kelly, in his 2012 work, outlines several factors that limit the creative development of
students. These factors are commonly seen in learning environments, but can be controlled
when a teacher is aware of them. They are:

Outcomes are unknown

Dissociation
Time constraints
Vertical comparisons
Hyper-competition
Hyper-consumption
Teaching for assessment

Creativity In Education - ETAD 805

Summative assessment
Social isolation
Extrinsic motivation
Early closure.

These factors work against the cognitive skills needed for creative development and thinking
and need to be mitigated to ensure success. The challenge, however, comes in removing these
factors. While it is easy to state them, it can be difficult to overcome them due to the constraints
that were discussed earlier. The policies and requirements of education can create limitations
for how deeply an individual can engage in their own activities. Being held to specific curriculum
means that next years teachers are counting on certain outcomes being covered. Reporting
requirements and end-of-year summative assessments create perceived pressure for students
to perform in a traditional manner.
How then can this be overcome? It is a common suggestion to start small and choose the
outcomes that best foster the open-ended efforts of individual students developing their
creativity. This is most clearly outlined by the idea of Googleable vs. Ungoogleable questions
(McIntosh, 2013), which has teachers and students sorting through outcomes to identify
information that can be found on the internet (or other sources) and broader themes or
problems that require personal thought and inquiry to develop in a meaningful way.

Theme 3: Assessment
Beghetto points out that research into the specific assessment of creativity is presently limited
(2010) and often relies on the use of specific scales that assess creative potential. For a
classroom teacher this information can be put to good use but does not necessarily support
finding the balance between creative developments and the constraints of educational policy
and procedures. It is necessary to move beyond assessment that focuses purely on creativity
and look at the learning and understanding of the content being studied.
Changes in the design of instruction require changes in current assessment practices. As seen
in Theme 2, summative assessments and teaching for these assessment can stifle creative
development. While some summative assessments are required in different provinces, there
has been a push, in general, to move towards the use of formative assessment practices in
classrooms of all age groups. This form of assessment looks at progress individuals make
during their learning and, according to Davies (2007), involves:

checking to see what has been learned and what needs to be learned next
assessing specific and descriptive feedback in relation to criteria that is focused on
improvement
participation by the student - the person most able to improve their learning.

Creativity In Education - ETAD 805

10

Much like developing the skills needed for creativity, assessment for learning (as opposed to
assessment of learning) needs a supportive community that understands:

that mistakes are essential for learning

the difference between descriptive and evaluative feedback
that they will have the time to try out their ideas
that success has many different looks (Davies, 2007).

As the community becomes established, the creativity of students is further supported as they
develop an ability to plan with the end objective in mind, describe their own success criteria, and
provide clear evidence of their own learning (Davies, 2007). Throughout this process, the
teacher is involved as a learning guide and mentor who provides suggestions and insight into
the individual progress being made within the classroom.

Conclusion
The creative process is a personal one and the journey towards implementing creativity in
education is much the same. As helpful as it would be to have models, frameworks, or
checklists to use during early implementation, these would go against the principles that have
been discussed in this paper. It is important, then, for the individual teacher to review the
literature on creativity and assessment to develop their own understanding, and begin
implementation based on the needs of their specific students and learning environments.
Adding to this, it is vital that the teacher gains an understanding of the limitations and
constraints placed upon them by the system in which they work. Only by understanding the
challenges can the challenges be overcome. No matter the constraints, it is possible to select
specific outcomes or provide dedicated time periods to begin teaching to develop creativity.

Creativity In Education - ETAD 805

11

References
Beghetto, R.A. (2010). Creativity in the classroom. In Kaufman, J.C & Sternberg R.J. (Eds.),
The cambridge handbook of creativity (p. 20-47). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bio: Sir Ken Robinson. (n.d.) Retrieved from http://sirkenrobinson.com/?page_id=10
Craft, A. (2005). Creativity in schools: Tensions and dilemmas. New York, NY: Routledge.
Craft, A. (2011). Creativity and education futures: Learning in a digital age. Sterling, USA:
Trentham Books.
Creativity. (n.d.). Retrieved from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creativity
Cropley, A.J. (1992). More ways than one: Fostering creativity. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publisher
Corporation.
Cropley, A.J. (1995). Fostering creativity in the classroom: General principles. In Runco, M.A.
(Ed.), The creativity research handbook (Vol. 1) (p. 83-114). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY:
Harper Perennial.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention.
New York, NY: Harper Perennial.
Dacey, J.S. & Lennon K.H. (1998). Understanding creativity: The interplay of biological,
psychological and social factors. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Davies, A. (2007). Making classroom assessment work (2nd ed.). Courtenay, BC: Connections
Publishing.
Desailly, J. (2012). Creativity in the primary classroom. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Franken, Robert E. (1993) Human motivation (3rd ed). Stamford, CT: Brooks/Cole.
Juliani, A.J. (June 25, 2013). Why 20% time is good for schools [Web log]. Retrieved from
http://www.edutopia.org/blog/20-percent-time-a-j-juliani
Kelly, R. & Leggo, C. (2008) Creative expression, creative education: Creativity as a primary
rationale for education. Calgary, AB: Detselig Enterprises.

Creativity In Education - ETAD 805

12

Kelly, R (Ed.). (2012) Educating for creativity: A global conversation. Calgary, AB: Brush
Education Inc.
Kozbelt, A., Beghetto, R.A., & Runco, M.A. (2010). Theories of creativity. In Kaufman, J.C &
Sternberg R.J. (Eds.), The cambridge handbook of creativity (p. 20-47). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
McIntosh, E. (March 05, 2013). Googleable vs. non-googleable questions [Web log]. Retrieved
from http://notosh.com/lab/googleable-vs-non-googleable-questions
Robinson, K. (2011). Out of our minds: Learning to be creative. Westford, NJ: Capstone
Publishing.
Starko, A.L. (2001). Creativity in the classroom: Schools of curious delight (2nd ed). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Trilling, B. & Fadel C., (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.